To Wheel, Or Not to Wheel

[flydean]

Let's get rid of that silly wheel rule!!!

Seriously, all they do is get in the way. This is a holdover from the SAM rules from whence the concept of Nostalgia Gas came. Those were the days of sparkers swinging large props and rolling their Trexlers across the tarmac to rise gracefully into the sky.

Even in the Nostalgia days, many dispensed with the single wheel landing gear for hand launching. They either had no pavement to launch from, or did not want to risk trashing their models by flying off of pavement. I remember very few attempting ROG with single-wheeled gear. When VTO came along, it became an anachronism.

That front wheel has cost me a couple models when, being slightly bend on repeated DT landings, the power pattern was altered, causing a crash. They are very difficult to keep aligned and generally are a pain.

One of the reasons I build T-Birds as there were none of those @#@!!&%^^!@!! wheels!

There is no need to duplicate the worst features of many Nos Gas designs.

[Pete]

Dean,
A Civy Boy just doesn't look right without that wheel and "L" shaped gear leg!
Cheers!

[flydean]

Pete, that's fine, and if you build one, you can choose to fit a wheel. However, If I build one, I should have the freedom to do what many back in the 50's did and fit a skid.

Your idea of what a Civy Boy "should" look like should not dictate how I build mine.

[Dan Berry]

Shewt, even Old Timers don't hafta ROG.
Begone, wheels.

[sblake]

I like the wheels, but I really don't care if others don't use them. And a T-bird needs a skid even if it's not shown on the plan. I really think it's time the whole nostalgia rules thing was revisited with the idea of making it a whole lot simpler. I think any baffle piston engine should be allowed, and if you're going to allow .049 Medallions you should allow the standard Medallion with the no. 1 cylinder, and that any airplane designed before Dec. 31, 1956 should be eligible, period! I've been looking around for a new airplane for ignition nostalgia and I have a plan for a Super Slicker which is in the right period, shows ignition on the plan, but is deemed ineligible because it also shows a glow engine on the plan as well. Too much nit-picking in the rules making, I think!

[Jim Moseley]

>, but is deemed ineligible

Don't worry about it, Simon - the Slicker was never a great performer, short coupled and heavily loaded. The '42' was so succesful in the latter 40's because there was little else to compete with it in the UK and so it formed the vast majority of entries. One tended to be enthusiastic about those thermalling whilst overlooking the others spiralling down. The later versions never made a mark in competition.

[sblake]

I'm sure you're right about the 42 inch version Jim -- I have that plan too and if memory serves correctly it has a thin flat bottomed airfoil. The 60 inch version has a nice undercambered section, just what's needed for hauling the batteries, coil, etc., and it shows a Forster .29 on the plan so I suspect it went pretty well, although I've never seen one fly. And, to get back on topic, it wouldn't look right without the wheel(s)!

Regards, Simon

[flydean]

OK, I have finally unpacked from my move, gotten fired from my job, so now have time on my hands. Rules proposal to be submitted at long last.

[MikeM]

this thread is a riot..........rules are rules right?

or can i also start competing with my '57 series Satellite 600 in Nostalgia?

i mean after all.

nice to see you are finally moved though........took what, 10 months

[randy b]

gotta build them the way god designed them

[flydean]

My point is that omitting wheels in favor of a simple skid, or even nothing at all was a very common practice in the Nostalgia period. Why not be able to do the same thing now?

[MikeM]

My point is that omitting wheels in favor of a simple skid, or even nothing at all was a very common practice in the Nostalgia period. Why not be able to do the same thing now?

well first of all Dean, have you been to a major (annual for instance) contest lately?...............our recent annual was considered a good turnout, but in reallity our monthly constets back in the 80's were much bigger by comparison. FF needs to generate enthusiasm by making changes i think.
many of the rules for Nostalgia, if not all of them were written back then, and written so that only certain models and engines would dominate, and of course many great models were somehow bumped. FreeFlight is not gaining any momentum either as far as participation is concerned.
me personally, i like the post Nostalgia models because that was my era as a Junior.
Nostalgia rules as it is i feel should allow "anything goes" and let the competitor modify his model just as he was allowed to back in the day. the weight rule pretty much dictates all else right?...........so what difference with adding or removing a wheel or skid do to the models performance?............not much if any with the flying speeds they generated.
the rules need to be modified...............

[flydean]

Mike,

I have been to every NATS sincd '04 except '08, and agree with your observation. Nos rules were written when Nos era engines were plentiful and cheap. Less so now. I personally think any loop scavenged plain bearing engine should be allowed, but for now, I am going after the silly wheel rule. It was a left over from the Old Timer movement from whence Nos emerged.

Classic Gas was developed after observing how many people were gravitating from AMA gas to Nos. Frankly, I would support dropping anything-goes-VIT-bunting for AMA and stick with just Classic. However, many "old school" want to keep building auto surface models.

Again, half a loaf is better than none. Get rid of the wheels! All you will lose is possibly a few needlessly busted models.